In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

Yes, with possible exceptions.

It is possible that a legitimate and proportionate reason could apply to all transgender people, for example a trans-excusionary rape crisis centre.

However, in AEA vs EHRC, the judge said:

"Similarly, the statement that a service provider can have a policy, but should apply it on a case-by-case basis, is in my view correct. There may be exceptional circumstances in which an application of an otherwise reasonable policy would not be proportionate. The defendant's example of an urgent approach to an otherwise empty women's hostel in a middle-of-the-night emergency may be an example. Whether or not that is a good example, it is clearly possible that particular circumstances can arise where proportionality requires an exception to be made"

An example might be a sporting body which decides to allow trans girls to play with other girls in the Under 12s category, but not in older categories, or exclude trans women if their hormone levels don't meet the criteria. (I think sport might be a special exception decided exclusively by the sporting bodies, though. so perhaps this isn't a great example.)

No requirement to exclude trans women from women's single sex facilities, does not require employers to include them.

Having single sex toilets in the workplace is and has been the norm to protect the dignity and safety of female and by that I mean biological women. This excludes any males whether they hold a GRC or not.

If trans women do not feel comfortable in male toilets then they may wish to raise this with their employer and ask for alternative provisions which do not impact on female employees.

Obviously this only applies to larger employers many small employers may only have a single facility used by both sexes.

As @ArabellaScott states, do not listen to Dad joke (or anyone on else on here for that matter) for legal advice. Dad Joke in particular has an anti woman agenda.

Looking into Mackereth for myself doesn't to me seem to be supporting what's been said above about it.
This article seems quite neutral and unbiased.

"Mackereth's manager met him to discuss the issue and to find out more about his beliefs. However, the doctor became upset. The following day he went home and claimed he'd been suspended. The DWP asked him to confirm if would follow the agreed processes but he said he couldn’t and effectively resigned."

Seems to form the main basis of the result for me. He didn't engage, and lost as a result.

"Mackereth's specific belief was protected, as was his lack of belief in gender ideology. But it said the tribunal had been correct to dismiss his claims. There was no direct discrimination. He had not been 'interrogated' about his beliefs or pressured to renounce them, nor had he been suspended or dismissed because of them. He also hadn't been harassed."

"One wonders if the outcome for Mackereth might have been different if he'd engaged with his managers about how the service could accommodate his beliefs without prejudicing the duties it owed to its service users."

I don't think this is the smoking gun it's being made out to be.

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1803986/employers-insist-staff-use-peoples-preferred-pronouns

Just another wee reminder that 'Someone said so on Mumsnet' is not a sensible position to base HR decisions on.

Check EHRC guidance, or check with a qualified solicitor.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

@DadJoke
Can you clarify something you said please?
If a provider choses to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces, they can, but the reason must be legitimate and proportionate and on a case by case basis (current EHRC guidance)

Where you say on a "case by case basis"(cbcb) could be interpreted as each single sex space on a cbcb , or each person attempting to enter a single sex space on a cbcb, or possibly even both of those interpretations at the same time.

My understanding is that each single sex space could face assessment for legitimacy and proportionallity on a cbcb. Assuming it passed those tests it would then be a single sex space that was allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex.

The current EHRC guidance has not yet been approved by parliament under EqA 2006 s14 and is not statutory. Don't rely on it if you are an employer. It will not be taken into account in an ET or other court case.

Some of the examples, if implemented, are likely to be result in legal challenge.

Rely on the the previous guidance, which is statutory, until such time as the new guidance is approved.

There is no requirement to exclude trans woman from single sex spaces (AEA vs EHRC)
A single sex space does not become mixed sex because a transgender person is in it. (AEA vs EHRC)

"The claimant submits that if a difference of treatment can be justified vis-a-vis birth men in general, then it is inconceivable that it cannot equally be justified vis-à-vis birth men who are transsexual women. On that approach, though, the Equality Act's gender reassignment provisions would in substance provide no protection at all, in the context of an SSS, to transexual persons without a GRC. The claimant points out that what has to be justified under s.19(2)(d) is the PCP in general. So if vis-à-vis men in general it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end, then the same must apply vis-à-vis birth males who are transexual women. Thus, the claimant's approach would place transsexual women without a GRC in the same position for these purposes as all other birth males. That is clearly incompatible with the tenor of the Act, which plainly sets out distinct provisions in s.19 (as applied to gender reassignment) and in Schedule 3 para. 29, which apply to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment: over and above, and separately from, those in paras. 26 and 27 of Schedule 3 relating to sex discrimination."

If a provider choses to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces, they can, but the reason must be legitimate and proportionate and on a case by case basis (current EHRC guidance)

So, you can have rape crisis centre which includes trans women, and one which doesn't.

If you don't respect the pronouns of clients, then you can be dismissed. (Mackereth)

I'd guess you can't be forced to "state your pronouns" or include them in your emails, though that's not been tested.

Like the gendered soul theory?

The reality that people with religious and pseudo-religious beliefs need to be accommodated in the work environment to the extent that it doesn't impinge on the rights of others? I'm very familiar with that.

Placemarking to read later

Is this a reverse ferret I see before me to say 'look we have never discriminated against staff members who have gender critical views'.

Well I'm screwed as I use that as an answer to just about everything in the real world! Unless it's cake related and then I invoke our dear own cakey username poster!

Appalling piece of writing. Absolutely dreadful!

I'm just catching up.

Aye and it's such an easy mistake to make.

Ha! 😄 Where’s that “chef’s kiss” emoji when you need it.

This.
Disability is protected but that doesn’t mean we have to hire a blind bus driver, put someone in a wheelchair in a regular rugby team or ban speech so deaf people don’t feel left out.

It’s protections plus reasonable adjustments but it’s not do what you want.

It's such a nightmare when you accidentally use the "Gross Misconduct" letter template instead of the "I'm sorry we harassed you" one.

Thanks @ArabellaScott and others. Every day is a school day. You live, you learn!

But don’t, whatever you do, consult Worknest! I hear they have some very poorly trained apprentices…

Poorly drafted legislation doesn't help this mess, does it?

Many people don’t "deliberately misgender" anyone, but they do both subconsciously, and on occasion deliberately, correctly sex people. If that turns out to be against the law, I for one am willing to defend myself in court for being honest and truthful.

They do have the protected characteristic, but the "protection" is simply the right not to be treated worse than someone who isn't undergoing gender reassignment.

This sort of discrimination is the sort of thing any reasonable person would be against:

• can't be chucked out of school because they say they're changing gender
• can't be segregated from the rest of the class because they say they're changing gender
• can't be bullied or ridiculed because they say they're changing gender

What they're not entitled to is to be considered the opposite sex from their actual sex in terms of single sex exemptions as they don't have a GRC (since under 18)

• can't insist on using the opposite sex's toilets or changing facilities
• can't insist on being housed in accommodation for the opposite sex on residentials

There's probably a huge grey area around uniform and other school rules on hair etc. Probably not reasonable for the school to insist on single sex rules for these.

The side with the sense of humour is the side to be.

I believe the government's lawyers were debating exactly that point and iirc decided children were able to be protected by gender reassignment characteristic. If that makes sense, I'm very tired!